list_exam_results

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return structure and the possibility of an empty list, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error conditions, pagination, or ordering, leaving some behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds value: the purpose, the return format, and the empty-list caveat. There is no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter list tool, this is complete enough. The description states what is listed, describes the return shape, and warns about empty results. Even without an output schema shown, the agent has sufficient information to invoke and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage by default. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings, so the baseline of 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('active lab/exam results available in the portal'). The resource is distinct from sibling tools like invoices, prescriptions, and clinical documents, so an agent can immediately know what this tool covers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly indicates when the tool is appropriate—when active lab/exam results are needed—but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like list_clinical_documents exist, and no differentiation or exclusion is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.